It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions for ID/creationist

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Why do you believe in Creationism?

Do you believe that the theory of evolution disproves god?

I am starting this thread so I can have a better understanding of why some people believe in Intelligent Design/creationism instead of Evolution. I do not plan on arguing with any one who replies these questions. (Unless just plain silly)

Thanks for answering my question

[edit on 18-8-2007 by youngskeptic]

[edit on 19-8-2007 by youngskeptic]




posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I'm sure people who believe in ID will have various answers, but straight from the horse's mouth:

"Christians in the twentieth century have been playing defense. They've been fighting a defensive war to defend what they have, to defend as much of it as they can. It never turns the tide. What we're trying to do is something entirely different. We're trying to go into enemy territory, their very center, and blow up the ammunition dump. What is their ammunition dump in this metaphor? It is their version of creation. ... This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science ... It's about religion and philosophy."

Phillip Johnson, the founder of the modern Intelligent Design movement, February 6, 2000, at the National Religious Broadcasters annual conference in Anaheim, CA.

They aren't supposed to believe in evolution. They're supposed to destroy it. It's "the enemy."



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   
MMF,
How can you call evolution science? Isn't science supposed to be unbiased and factual??? Well you have the phony Haekel embryo drawings to make all babies look the same. You have the flawed horse chart. The fake dino-bird from China. The piltdown man, Nebraska man and Lucy who was just an ape. So why is the limestone sedimentary layer throughout the entire globe, if you think there was only local flooding?
Why was oxygen so much more prevalent eons ago??(before Noah's flood.)
How is it that carbon dating is so wrong, Oh, it can only date things 50,000 years and older and it's still wrong then! The evidence for the black moths comes from "scientists" waiting around a certain forest and when thier hypothesis wasn't working while they were "on the clock" they killed some moths and glued thier bodies to a tree, took a picture and said voila'! Looks like more black than white moths!! Let's write a book!!!$$$
These things are still taught as dogma, willy-nilly! Why is archyopterix still just a bird?found in the same layers as other birds?
I could go on and on. Every time evolutionists have a new idea, there's always a flaw they're sitting on to keep thier prestige going. Come on. Dare to think outside evolution.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Clearskies some of this stuff you are saying is nonsense

Yes the Haeckel embryo drawing is fake but his point is still valid


Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids.


Please back up your claim about the horse and lucy being fakes



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
MMF,
How can you call evolution science? Isn't science supposed to be unbiased and factual??? Well you have the phony Haekel embryo drawings to make all babies look the same.


yes, and now those drawings are only used to show how evolutionary theory has developed over the years. now we use embryo imaging.



You have the flawed horse chart.


also used in the same way the embryo chart is



The fake dino-bird from China.


i'm not sure what you're referring to... because is that archaeoptryx? because that's a legit fossil.

and again, if it's a fake, science acknowledges that



The piltdown man,


acknowledged as a fake by science



Nebraska man


see above.



and Lucy who was just an ape.


no, she was an australopithecine



So why is the limestone sedimentary layer throughout the entire globe, if you think there was only local flooding?


how would limestone sedimentary layers prove your argument?



Why was oxygen so much more prevalent eons ago??


probably had to do with a difference in the proportions of plant life to animal life



(before Noah's flood.)


prove said flood existed



How is it that carbon dating is so wrong, Oh, it can only date things 50,000 years and older and it's still wrong then!


carbon dating isn't wrong. it is based on scientific CONSTANTS. it is accurate in dating anything in a certain timeframe to about a few decades accuracy.

[qupte]
The evidence for the black moths comes from "scientists" waiting around a certain forest and when thier hypothesis wasn't working while they were "on the clock" they killed some moths and glued thier bodies to a tree, took a picture and said voila'! Looks like more black than white moths!! Let's write a book!!!$$$


got any evidence to support this defamation?



These things are still taught as dogma, willy-nilly! Why is archyopterix still just a bird?found in the same layers as other birds?


that isn't just a bird, it is clearly a transitional form. it has traits associated with dinosaurs.
and what birds were found in that layer in the same area?

edit: fixed quote error

[edit on 8/19/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I believe in creationism because with my current knowledge on the subject, it makes the most sense. I also believe in micro-evolution. I think that God created an original set of animals, and that they have diversified over time. I believe that the dog, for example, was originally just a dog. Over time we ended up with big dogs, little dogs, wolves, and so on, but they remain fundamentally the same. With my current understanding of genetics, I can't see a species evolving into something fundamentally different.

I don't think that evolution disproves God, but is more His way of ensuring His creation continues. At least evolution in the context I have provided. I am always searching for more answers, and I am not afraid to change my current belief should I find sufficient reason to do so.

I am not familiar with all topics that Clearskies brought up, but I have my doubts on carbon dating as well. I found this in an article on physicsworld


Carbon dating is a mainstay of geology and archaeology - but an enormous peak discovered in the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere between 45 thousand and 11 thousand years ago casts doubt on the biological carbon cycle that underpins the technique.

physicsworld.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">physicsworld.com...

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Bullfrog]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by youngskeptic
Why do you believe in Creationism?

Do you believe that the theory of evolution disproves god?

I am starting this thread so I can have a better understanding of why some people believe in Intelligent Design/creationism instead of Evolution. I do not plan on arguing with any one who replies these questions. (Unless just plain silly)

Thanks for answering my question

[edit on 18-8-2007 by youngskeptic]

[edit on 19-8-2007 by youngskeptic]


Well you see,if the theory of evolution was possiable I'd beleive it 100 percent and educated people about it,but honestly I don't take the theory seriously.It's a joke....the "evidence" isn't evidence at all.Also the tools that drive evolution are short handed,mutations cannot create complex organisms EVEN with natural selection.It is a fact that most biologist,me knowing one personally accept ID.I am not here to argue about evolution and the meaning of life,I am on no ones side but what my name states,reason and logic,and the theory of evolution are neither of those.Ofcourse if i was presenting an arugment i'd bring some backup proof to the table but I'm just stating my opinion which can be easily shut down or praised since I didn't bring any evidence,if you'd like to have a more detailed discussion feel free to contact me.It's nice to see some people using there brains,and there knowledge.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reason-And-Logic

It is a fact that most biologist, me knowing one personally accept ID.


I'd like to see where you got this "fact." Can you link a source, please?

You really can't come on here and make claims like this without backing them up; it is my understanding that most biologists do NOT believe in ID, that biology has more atheists than any other branch of the sciences.

I'm looking for the statistics to back up my claim: where are yours?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Here is an article about professors and scientists in Ohio only:



Not unexpectedly, those who have the academic training and expertise (PhDs) to teach the basic natural and physical sciences in Ohio's public and private universities regarded the concept of "intelligent design" as an unscientific notion. More than 9 out of 10 (91%) thought it was primarily a religious view. The vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution." Only a tiny percentage of them (7%) thought that "intelligent design" was either "strongly" or "partly" supported by scientific evidence. Most (90%) believed there was no scientific evidence at all for the idea of "intelligent design". And 3% were "not sure". Furthermore, when asked if they ever used the ID concept in their research, virtually all of them (97%) said "no."


Since when is 7% considered "most"?



[edit on 7-9-2007 by MajorMalfunction]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Here is an article about professors and scientists in Ohio only:



Not unexpectedly, those who have the academic training and expertise (PhDs) to teach the basic natural and physical sciences in Ohio's public and private universities regarded the concept of "intelligent design" as an unscientific notion. More than 9 out of 10 (91%) thought it was primarily a religious view. The vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution." Only a tiny percentage of them (7%) thought that "intelligent design" was either "strongly" or "partly" supported by scientific evidence. Most (90%) believed there was no scientific evidence at all for the idea of "intelligent design". And 3% were "not sure". Furthermore, when asked if they ever used the ID concept in their research, virtually all of them (97%) said "no."


Since when is 7% considered "most"?



[edit on 7-9-2007 by MajorMalfunction]


I ment to use many,I got into it a little bit. Is that the only thing you can comment on in my entire argument,the word I used? Also I doubt those charts are accurate and if it was it was probably a small number of biologist.

I'm literally asking any of you to prove my statement wrong: Evolution cannot occur from mutation and natural selection.

Complex machines do not come along by mutations then elimination,because it would still be up to the mutation to generate the complex organism which would be impossiable taking into the account the damage the mutation would cause to the specie.Also what caused the mutation,radiation?Just because a scientist says he has proof dosen't mean he has proof.



I mean how can something become complex

[edit on 7-9-2007 by Reason-And-Logic]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   
The fact that there is disease, hardships and errors in the system does not mean there isnt ID behind it. It merely points to the fact that we may not view the system correctly. or use the system correctly.

My view of humanity is that from our aspect, we cannot see much. So religion is born out of superstition. typically started by some freak who is insane but well spoken.

Everything relates back to and is based in fractilian motion, trees are a good example. Anyone who has done psychedelics claims they come away enlightned or with a sense of knowing themselves better etc..

my point generally is that God, is part of our sytem, the universe. He originally wanted it to be good according to our texts. but we dont know this. in fact all we know of a god is through the hand of humanity, which yes can be made up.

But in myself. I somewhere know that the many coincidences that make things work out for the better. Cannot just be coincidence. And im not alone there.

I think that a super being we call God, created out of his own thought, our universe, set it free and is hanging loosely on the sidelines to see how we can work ourselves within the fishbowl.

Also why do humans have complex emotions, and the ability to reason, when other creatures do not? did we evolve? why arent other creatures evolving?

Because the rabit hole goes back millions of years, to other worlds and dimensions. And not until we meet GOd if we do. Will we come close to knowing the story behind the universe.

I also think texts like the quran, the bible and others are abused by religious ignoratns and subversives who drive people away from god on purpose. God is not an angry retribution filled monster, he justice, and if anyone oppresses nations, or nations dont stop hurting themselves, well he lives as part of you whether you know it or not, and you offend him..so he sends curses like wars, poverty, economic collapse on the world. And they all happen to line up to 2012 and planet x as i metioned elsewhere. coincidence? i think not.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastermind77
The fact that there is disease, hardships and errors in the system does not mean there isnt ID behind it. It merely points to the fact that we may not view the system correctly. or use the system correctly.

My view of humanity is that from our aspect, we cannot see much. So religion is born out of superstition. typically started by some freak who is insane but well spoken.

Everything relates back to and is based in fractilian motion, trees are a good example. Anyone who has done psychedelics claims they come away enlightned or with a sense of knowing themselves better etc..

my point generally is that God, is part of our sytem, the universe. He originally wanted it to be good according to our texts. but we dont know this. in fact all we know of a god is through the hand of humanity, which yes can be made up.

But in myself. I somewhere know that the many coincidences that make things work out for the better. Cannot just be coincidence. And im not alone there.

I think that a super being we call God, created out of his own thought, our universe, set it free and is hanging loosely on the sidelines to see how we can work ourselves within the fishbowl.

Also why do humans have complex emotions, and the ability to reason, when other creatures do not? did we evolve? why arent other creatures evolving?

Because the rabit hole goes back millions of years, to other worlds and dimensions. And not until we meet GOd if we do. Will we come close to knowing the story behind the universe.

I also think texts like the quran, the bible and others are abused by religious ignoratns and subversives who drive people away from god on purpose. God is not an angry retribution filled monster, he justice, and if anyone oppresses nations, or nations dont stop hurting themselves, well he lives as part of you whether you know it or not, and you offend him..so he sends curses like wars, poverty, economic collapse on the world. And they all happen to line up to 2012 and planet x as i metioned elsewhere. coincidence? i think not.


interesting....I agree there are alot of people who misguide followers of there religions to do evil things.What is this planet x? If it is coming why can't we observe it,it is only 5 years away right?


[edit on 8-9-2007 by Reason-And-Logic]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Would people who believe in ID/creationism also think that they are Not alive as well? You are a machine and a preprogrammed one at that. You have no free will and you don't have a life. Your body has a design and if a part does not work or is not replaced then you cease to exist any further. Is this how creationism sees things?



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by I See You
Would people who believe in ID/creationism also think that they are Not alive as well? You are a machine and a preprogrammed one at that. You have no free will and you don't have a life. Your body has a design and if a part does not work or is not replaced then you cease to exist any further. Is this how creationism sees things?


Not at all!!!
Speaking for myself, there would be no sin, no contraversy,(sp?)
no hardships, if we were God's "Robots".

Freewill is what makes us independant from God. But His Love for us and our love for him, makes us close to him at the same time...

God has miraculously saved those, who for all natural laws, should not even be breathing. People have come back to life after being dead, etc..

God made us, he can control anything about us according to our actions.
If we love him the bible says everything works for our good.(I've experienced that many times)
If we ignore him, it will be like playing dice, if we hate him, we can expect trouble!!!



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies

Originally posted by I See You
Would people who believe in ID/creationism also think that they are Not alive as well? You are a machine and a preprogrammed one at that. You have no free will and you don't have a life. Your body has a design and if a part does not work or is not replaced then you cease to exist any further. Is this how creationism sees things?


Not at all!!!
Speaking for myself, there would be no sin, no contraversy,(sp?)
no hardships, if we were God's "Robots".

Freewill is what makes us independant from God. But His Love for us and our love for him, makes us close to him at the same time...

God has miraculously saved those, who for all natural laws, should not even be breathing. People have come back to life after being dead, etc..

God made us, he can control anything about us according to our actions.
If we love him the bible says everything works for our good.(I've experienced that many times)
If we ignore him, it will be like playing dice, if we hate him, we can expect trouble!!!


Do you beleive in the 1 god because you were raised to? Or did you step back from the things you were told and look at the idea of 1 god from a thinker's point of view? There is 1 god no doubt about that,but the way you follow him my not be the correct way,this is were critical thinking comes into play.We know god exists,but what do you do about it?



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   


Originally posted by Reason-And-Logic

Since when is 7% considered "most"?


I ment to use many,I got into it a little bit.


I couldn't find the link I needed until today, but in order to burst your bubble on this, only about .15% of biologists and geologists believe in creationism.

That's POINT one five percent - one tenth of one percent.

It's not even "many." It's 700 scientists total out of 480,000 scientists.

www.gate.net...

The reason I chose this particular part of your post is because I am showing you that the argument from authority is not a valid point in the evolution/creation "debate."



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join